I suppose it depends on what you mean by "advancing his progressive agenda." If that means "make every liberal in the country to the right of PETA hate you with a burning passion" then yes, running with Nader is the perfect way to accomplish his objectives.

. . . who gives a rat's ass?

Does Gonzalez really thinks he has a better chance of advancing his progressive agenda on Nader's laughably doomed ticket than he would have by running for Mayor again in San Francisco, where he actually stood a chance of winning and getting something done?

If Nader really wanted to get elected he wouldn't start with President of the United States. What about Congress? Apparently, Nader feels that he wouldn't get as much attention that way.

Like Ms. Mieszkowski I have to wonder what Matt Gonzalez hopes to accomplish. So far Nader's biggest accomplishment is helping Bush get elected.

Perhaps Mr. Gonzales thinks that there will be a debate among the joke vice-presidential candidates and he will get to meet Stephanie Miller.

I voted for Gonzales against Newsom but have since been disappointed by his almost total disappearance from politics since his run for mayor. One reason I've heard for this is that Gonzales craves attention, and after the intense spotlight of the mayoral race, returning to grassroots organizing and politics was a boring letdown for him.

This is certainly not to say he lacks any substance, but it is to say that he possibly enjoys the spectacle of things like running as Nader's veep a bit more than he likes toiling away in the marginalized obscurity of San Francisco progressive politics.

My guess is that he wants to take advantage of an expenses-paid cross country speaking tour. Out of this he'll get to see the country on someone else's dime, and increase his profile and contacts list nationally. I don't see why anyone in his place wouldn't do it.

Why does the media, starting as always with "Meet the Press", treat Ralph Nader as a serious third party candidate, when no one else with equally valid credentials would EVER receive similar treatment?

Consider the facts. In 2004, Nader received 0.38% of the national vote. Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik received 0.32% of the vote that year, actually BEATING Nader in 12 states where they both appeared on the ballot.

Now, I don't want to attract the scorn of those who adhere to the Libertarian Party -- I've got a few libertarian impulses myself, but honestly don't know enough about this organization to have an informed opinion -- but I do know one thing. Mainstream media outlets don't automatically grant the same respect and access to ANY third party, including the Libertarians, that Republicans and Democrats enjoy.

So, then, why does Nader deserve such special media treatment? Why doesn't the Libertarian Party merit the same treatment he enjoys, based on 2004 results? If the Libertarians are deemed irrelevant and undeserving, why isn't Nader too?

Just asking.

In the toilet bowl of San Francisco politics Gonzalez has been a particularly noxious presence. This decision shows his grandstanding to a national audience. The guy is more interested in theatrical rebellions against the (daddy) "power structure" than he is in progressive change for ordinary people.

OK how does his experience compare to Obama?

Is he comparable to Obama .. or because he is white .. hie is not as exciting as Obama even though they ahve the same experiences?

What if he start saying 'change and hope' too .. will that make him more exciting?

Okay, let's put this really insane proposition that Gonzalez is some kind of an egotistical media hound. I live in San Francisco and have met the man several times. On my way out of my polling place he was walking in. Both my wife and I were eager to say hello, but he shyly nodded and quietly walked into the polling place to cast his vote. I have sat right next to him on the bus for half an hour and watched him react the same way as scores of passengers try to greet him, talk to him, or just say thanks.

If there is any reason Gonzalez dropped out of the race it was because he does NOT like the spotlight, nor as one completely ignorant poster suggested, dropped out of grassroots organizing. If he finds it boring then why does he spend all his free time organizing for the green party and other causes he deems worthy.

Just because the Chronicle or SF based Salon don't feel it's worth their time to cover the minutiae of Gonzalez (or Nader's for that matter) constant political work at the grass roots, local and state level does not mean it is not happening.

Anyone who wants to know why Gonzalez dropped out of SF politics needs only to do quick search on the sfgate.com website. It was very thoroughly covered.

As for spreading completely specious allegations about Gonzalez's ego, vanity, or whatever, you ought to be embarrassed for perpetuating such utterly baseless lies.

Lasty, Mz. Mieszkowski, your ignorance of San Francisco politics is well illustrated by the fact that you seem to think that Gonzalez had a chance against Newsom and his 75% approval rating (at the time of the last mayoral election). I hardly believe you're the same person who wrote for the Guardian all those years with such a preposterous statement. Then again, I can see how a "culture" writer would mistake Newsom's scandals for substance.

Our reputation as a hothouse of woolly liberals, out of touch with the rest of the country, riding ratty bicycles in traffic while drinking black coffee and reciting Ani DiFranco lyrics, has just got a major boost in the mass media.

Hey, I resemble that remark -- except my bicycle is bad-ass and I live in Portland. You ain't out of touch San Franciscans, you're beautiful!

@RichEmery

The mainstream media gives Nader attention because he once got nearly 3% of the vote (which is significant when it's hard to find anyone who thinks voting for a non-Dem/Rep has any purpose) and because everyone on both sides of the establishment still blame Nader for Gore's loss (even though Gore won).

The media focuses on Nader now to create drama amidst an election season that is so interminably long that there are many days without any stories of substance. The libertarian candidate is not a name that inspires anyone to watch. Even though Nader won't get a bigger vote this time, everyone's still talking about him as a spoiler.

I think it would benefit our election process if, instead of complaining about which third-party candidates get media attention, we support and encourage the media to give that level of coverage to all third-party candidates.